James M Snell wrote:
> This is just off the top of my head so I'm certain that there are
> probably reasons why this wouldn't work, but could we not do something like,
>
> <link rel="edit put delete patch" href="http://example.org/foo" />
>
> Edit indicates the purpose of the link, put, delete and patch indicate
> methods (in addition to GET).
>
That doesn't tell you what sort of stuff you are allowed to PUT to that
URL, though. I'm not sure that HTML is really the place to tell you that
it expects an Atom entry, but without it knowing that it supports PUT is
not that useful either.
However, I guess one could argue that there should be something that
acts as the opposite of the "type" attribute: rather than the type that
should result when you GET, instead indicate the type that you should
PUT. Probably too tricky to be worth it, though: it'd probably need all
of the capabilities of the HTTP "Accept" header to be useful, and it's
questionable whether that much detail should be defined externally of
the resource itself.
(I guess that discovering this sort of thing is what the OPTIONS method
is for?)